[simpits-tech] Falcon views 360?

[Brian Sikkema]

I've heard of this technique being used in military sims before, if I
remember correctly. It would definitely be a nice way to go... but yeah, a
bit pricey. The good stuff always is!

Brian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marv De Beque" <mdebeque at woh.rr.com>
To: "Simulator Cockpit tech list" <simpits-tech at simpits.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [simpits-tech] Falcon views 360?


>
> Here is another thought.  Two views are all that are required using two
> projectors.
>
> View number 1 is a super wide angle view that spans the complete view
area.
> Obviously at 1024 by 768 this would make the view very, very pixilated or
> low resolution, but that is perfectly fine.
>
> View number 2 is also 1024 by 768, but is a narrow field of view (perhaps
10
> to 20 degrees or so).  It is aimed by a moveable mirror at the point that
> the pilot is looking (head tracking could provide the needed information
as
> to where to aim).  Two mirrors are required, but only one need move.  The
> moving mirror can be servo controlled and since it is low mass it can
swing
> the image to the desired spot as rapidly as the pilot moves.
>
> View number 1 represents the peripheral vision.  This is the view that the
> eye sees outside of the fovea.  As you know, you can't read from your
> peripheral vision, so low resolution is fine.  To remove sharp contrasts
> between pixels, I would defocus the image slightly to create a natural
blur.
>
> However, images that strike the fovea can take advantage of the high
> resolution image from number 2, which is actually a very narrow angular
> section of one's view.  You need to expand the view of number 2 a little
> beyond the normal eye's viewing angle to allow for eye movement when your
> head is not pointed directly at the field of view, but you should have
> plenty of resolution to spare for this.  This image would be about 3 to 4
> times sharper than what you currently see in Falcon 4!
>
> Again, as Mark pointed out, it ain't dirt cheap, but it is easily
> technically achievable using ordinary off-the-shelf components and I
believe
> the results would be spectacular.
>
> Marv
>
>
>
>
> On 10/14/03 12:54 PM, "Mark Doran" <mark_s_doran at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think the way Erwin describes it on his site makes most sense to me.
Like
> > commercial simulation environments distributed processing makes this
problem
> > tractable.
> >
> > I don't have a lot of faith in the availability of head mounted displays
> > that have the right resolution, latency and transparency (you want to be
> > able to see the physical buttons and lights in your cockpit as you fly,
> > right?? ;-) anytime soon at a price I can afford.
> >
> > However, the prospect of assembling perhaps a dozen computers in a
little
> > network for managing and rendering multiple view fields of the same "out
the
> > window" scene is most definitely within reach, not cheap I'll grant you
but
> > within the bounds of possibility at today's cost points for machines.
> >
> > The old Fighter Dual had the mode that I would want for Falcon5: a
master
> > machine that you fly, it has your controllers and all that jazz.  Like
any
> > other game, that machine can be commanded to show any view but generally
you
> > want to pick one.  To this you slave up to eight other machines (I think
it
> > was 8) and each is a non-flyable replica of the game running on the
master.
> > In other words, the jet modeled in the game on the slave is the exact
same
> > one as that one the master.  The slaves can be commanded to show any
view in
> > the game also.  So set up master and slaves to show a different view on
each
> > one.  This actually worked pretty well in Fighter Duel in my experience.
> >
> > The good part of doing it this way is that the game developer wouldn't
have
> > to change the way on-screen views are done.  The default player will
only
> > have one master machine and will see the same view types as today.  The
> > cockpit guy with multiple slaves as well will simply have multiple
monitors
> > (or projectors) each set to a typical 60 degree slice of view field.
> > Perhaps the only really hard part on the developer (with respect to view
> > rendering that is) is making sure that the views supported don't really
> > overlap in bad ways...if would be nice for the game engine to think
about
> > seams in other words.
> >
> > This sort of approach would have some pretty serious requirements on
in-game
> > networking support of course.  Syncing multiple copies of a prop-job is
a
> > lot easier than something more sophisticated like an F-16 flying in a
> > missile-laden, electronic warfare rich, combat environment.  Having on
the
> > order of 10 clones of the one F-16 trying to stay in sync will require,
I
> > would imagine, quite a lot of bandwidth.  One wonders what the
implications
> > on bandwidth and latency might be if you want to have more than one
pilot
> > link for a multiplayer session in this kind of multi-view setup...the
mind
> > bogles but this would be the ultimate goal I would say...think: sort of
like
> > the twin dome sims that MacAir has at it's facility in St Louis.
> >
> > So much for thoughts on implementation strategy...I'd actually vote for
any
> > implementation strategy that would work, because...  More generally I
think
> > support for multiple view fields displayed simultaneously is the feature
I'd
> > say would generate the biggest advance in the state of the art for fast
jet
> > combat flight sims.  Who needs padlock?? ;-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mark.
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Inventmd at aol.com [mailto:Inventmd at aol.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 7:42 PM
> >> To: simpits-tech at simpits.org
> >> Subject: [simpits-tech] Falcon views 360?
> >>
> >> With all this talk about Falcon 5.0 coming out, I wonder if it doesn't
> > make
> >> sense to discuss our wish lists out loud.
> >>
> >> I think the biggest detraction from realism of any flight simulation is
> > the
> >> inability to look at the scenery around you.  Whether it be multiple
> > monitor
> >> support, or headmounted video goggles that pan around cockpit slaved to
> > head
> >> movements, my two cents is that this issue receive some attention.
> >>
> >> Perhaps the Falcon community could come to some sort of agreement in
terms
> > of
> >> the ideal algorithm for displaying the environment as close as 360
degrees
> > as
> >> possible.
> >>
> >> Perhaps the easiest is the headmounted goggle system with some sort of
> >> tracking device.  This would be similar to the padlock view but with
the
> > visual
> >> display tracking in Synchrony with head movements rather than panning
> > about using
> >> the arrow keys.
> >>
> >> It would be nice to have Falcon support for scalable multiple monitor
> > views.
> >> Specifically, support for a minimum of four monitors would be required:
> >> front, left, right, above. (And a 5th to check six) Scalability (or
zoom)
> > would be
> >> important so that everything could be adjusted for different monitor
sizes
> > at
> >> different distances (or video projector scenarios).  In other words,
for
> > those
> >> with four projectors and large rooms, it might be nice for the left
view
> >> display to merge and even overlap into the front view display and the
> > "above view"
> >>  display.  For those no space and small monitors, one might need to
scale
> > the
> >> picture down to get the appropriate field of view for the monitor
position
> > --
> >> and certainly not overlap.
> >>
> >> There are some incredibly smart people on this forum-so I figure maybe
we
> > can
> >> get your smarts into the project.
> >>
> >> John Li
> > _______________________________________________
> > Simpits-tech mailing list
> > Simpits-tech at simpits.org
> > http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
> > To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above
page.
> > Thanks!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simpits-tech mailing list
> Simpits-tech at simpits.org
> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
> To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above
page.  Thanks!
>